We respectfully ask City Council at the Council Retreat and through the Fund Our Future initiative to:

• Commit to appropriating funding for whatever maintenance, renovations, or construction is needed to keep a South Boulder Rec Center (SBRC) with all 3 of its existing core features:    
  • 6-lane lap pool  
  • full-size, double-court gymnasium  
  • exercise equipment/classrooms 

• Reject plans that eliminate, downgrade, or displace any of these core necessities away from Harlow Platts Park.   

These 3 core features are not optional amenities; they’re foundational to SBRC and to each of Boulder’s 3 rec centers for more than 50 years (NBRC opened in 1973, SBRC in 1974, EBRC in 1992).  Recently, Boulder Parks and Recreation declared that SBRC has reached “the end of its useful life,” but declined to commit to retaining these core features—particularly a lap pool—in plans for SBRC's future.  

The community, however, has been unequivocal: the nearly 1,000 respondents to the citizen-initiated Reimagine SBRC Survey identified a lap pool, double-court gym, and exercise equipment/classrooms as the must-have features in any future SBRC.  Indeed, these are not only beloved features at SBRC, they are necessities.    

Lap Pool is a Necessity

South Boulder relies on SBRC’s 6-lane lap pool year-round for inclusive, low-impact exercise, rehabilitation, training, and mental health.  Lap swimming is accessible to seniors, people with disabilities, and those with injuries or physical limitations, as well as families and kids (who are a sizable population in South Boulder).  It’s also central to the City’s Youth Services and 15-minute-neighborhoods goals—preventing South Boulder adults and kids (including Fairview Swim and Dive athletes who walk to SBRC for daily practice) from driving across town to reach a lap pool.

Keeping lap swimming at Harlow Platts Park—and not shifting our lap lanes to the East Boulder Rec Center or elsewhere—ensures equitable access for those in South Boulder.  Neither a ‘water feature’ nor a ‘field house’ can substitute for a lap pool in Harlow Platts Park, nor is a 'field house' something the community wants.  

Full-Size Gymnasium is a Necessity

SBRC’s full-size, double-court gymnasium is also essential.  It hosts neighborhood basketball leagues and pickup games, as well as drop-in volleyball, pickleball, and badminton.  It’s especially vital for kids: SBRC’s after-school “open gym” provides a safe, weather-proof place to play basketball, horse, and kid-created court games—open to everyone, not just students who make school teams.  This is especially important at SBRC, which sits in the Table Mesa neighborhood, within walking distance of 7 schools (one high school, one middle school, three elementary schools, and two preschools).  

Need for City Council Commitment

If Boulder Parks and Recreation decommissions SBRC’s existing building, a replacement SBRC at Harlow Platts Park can absolutely include a double-court gymnasium and a lap pool; indeed, the existing SBRC has had these features at this very site for more than 50 years.  Accordingly, we ask City Council to commit—through dedicated funding and direction—to keeping SBRC (whether through renovation or replacement) as a full-service neighborhood rec center with all 3 core features—including a lap pool and full-size gymnasium.  By doing so, City Council will ensure an inclusive, accessible rec center endures within a walkable 15-minute neighborhood.  That’s a legacy to be proud of.  

-------------------------------

Feb 3, 2026 

Update:  Reply to Councilor Wallach

Thank you for replying, Councilor Wallach.  We appreciate your response and share your concern about Boulder’s constrained fiscal environment.  To that end, we’d like to clarify what our petition is (and isn’t) asking for.

We are not asking for a new or “gold-plated” facility.  We are asking that SBRC not lose the 3 basic features it has always had—features all 3 Boulder rec centers have always had—features that make a “rec center.”  We’re open to the most cost-effective path forward (repair and maintain, renovate, or rebuild) so long as the chosen path guarantees SBRC retains an indoor 6–8 lane lap pool and a full-size, double-court basketball gym.  

Our overarching concern is that, without an unequivocal Council commitment to keep those core features at SBRC, Parks & Rec will replace SBRC with a “field house” (without a lap pool) and move SBRC’s swimming lanes to EBRC or elsewhere.  The community doesn’t support those outcomes, nor are they the best use of limited funds.  Nor does the community want Harlow Platts Field—a free, open-to-the-public field used for community volleyball, informal soccer and flag football, school cross-country meets, and everyday unstructured play—to be converted into a “field house” building that the public would then have to pay to access and use.

SBRC is uniquely important:  it’s the only rec center within walking distance of 7 schools serving nearly 4,000 students, in the walkable/bikeable Table Mesa neighborhood with a large population of seniors and families.  Keeping a lap pool and full-size gym at SBRC is therefore among the highest-impact ways to invest limited dollars.  Admittedly, no metric can capture how vital those amenities are for kids whose mental health depends on them—or how important it is that students and seniors can walk to these resources rather than making a 28–57-minute bus trip to EBRC—but those impacts are precisely what a “high-impact” investment should account for in a constrained budget.

We understand the argument that a “field house” may be cheaper to build, operate, and maintain, and that pools are energy-intensive.  But budgeting isn’t simply choosing the lowest-cost building type—it’s choosing which services the community values enough to sustain.  In a constrained budget, prioritization matters.  The petition itself is the clearest signal of community priority:  in 4 weeks, nearly 3,000 residents signed the petition asking Council to preserve SBRC’s lap pool and basketball gym.  Such overwhelming support is especially notable given the last 5 years of repeated and lengthy closures, reduced operating hours, shifting of aquatics classes and programming to EBRC, etc.  

We agree that identifying available funding pathways is part of responsible governance, so we’ve outlined several below.  

(1)  Use part of the existing, unspent $53 million EBRC “energy retrofit” appropriation.
City Council appropriated $53 million for an EBRC “energy retrofit.”  Those dollars have not been spent, and the CCRS tax does not require that they be spent at EBRC.  Council can direct that some portion be applied to SBRC instead.  Based on Parks & Rec’s stated $1,200/sq. ft. figure, a new SBRC would cost roughly $33 million (for reference only—we are not demanding a new facility), leaving approximately $20 million for EBRC’s energy retrofit.

Parks & Rec has used an “inflection point” rationale—i.e., treating a building as “end of life” when the costs of maintaining the infrastructure escalate significantly—to conclude that SBRC must be torn down while EBRC can be retrofitted.  Indeed, SBRC’s costs have risen sharply since 2020 due to pool failures.  

But the “inflection point” rationale is not being applied consistently.  Specifically, the City’s engineering report states that EBRC’s “pool and spa structures appear to be in good condition,” with no signs of concrete cracking, rebar corrosion, or water loss—yet Parks & Rec has commissioned architectural plans that include rebuilding/relocating EBRC’s pool.  Herein lies the inconsistency:  at EBRC, rebuilding/relocating the pool is treated as compatible with a retrofit plan; while at SBRC, pool problems/costs are treated as requiring demolition of the entire facility.

If EBRC’s pool can be rebuilt (including relocation/expansion) without demolishing EBRC, then SBRC’s pool can also be rebuilt/relocated without demolishing SBRC—especially given that City reports indicate EBRC faces even-greater site constraints than SBRC, including both a high water table and a floodplain.  SBRC’s pool (built with 1970s technology) operated for 46 years without major incident even though it was sited on the high-water-table side of SBRC, which speaks to the technical feasibility of rebuilding/relocating a modern pool on the other side of SBRC, away from the pond—just as EBRC’s pool is being planned away from EBRC’s pond.

(2)  Use voter-approved capital funding ($262 million authorized).
Voters recently authorized a $262 million bond for capital improvements that includes “recreation center renovations and replacements.”

(3)  Supplement with creative funding sources.
Naming rights, philanthropic donations, etc. can help close gaps alongside existing tax and bond revenue.

(4)  Put an SBRC-only question on the ballot.
If Council concludes that existing capital sources (including the $53 million EBRC “retrofit” appropriation and the voter-approved $262 million capital improvement bond) are insufficient to retain a 6–8 lane lap pool and double-court basketball gym at SBRC, then City Council can place a standalone SBRC question on the November 2026 ballot so that voters—not staff—can decide directly whether SBRC will keep its pool and basketball gym.  

Thank you again, Councilor Wallach.  We genuinely appreciate your engagement, and we hope you’ll consider supporting a clear Council commitment to keeping a lap pool and full-size basketball gym in SBRC.

---------------------------------------------------

Re-SBRC “Contact Us” form:  https://forms.gle/m53off5T6nX86Kzk8 

Please fill out our Contact Us form if you're interested in joining our teams of volunteers who are doing door-to-door outreach, making flyers, speaking to people outside of SBRC and King Soopers, etc.  Our ranks are growing by the day -- join us!  

Kids are welcome to help; students are even organizing their own groups. 

The Contact Us form is also where you can sign up for occasional email updates.